Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[smac97]

9 hours ago, esodije said:

I listened to the two recorded conversations the BYUPD had with Joseph L Bishop in December 2017 (posted by RFM yesterday). This is what I came away with:

1. There is still a huge disconnect between what Denson said happened in the MTC storage room and what Bishop confessed to.

Which suggests that we're left with gauging the merits of Denson's claims based almost solely on her personal credibility.  That's the only evidence in view.

And we all know how poor her credibility is.

9 hours ago, esodije said:

Bishop still thought Denson had had breast-augmentation surgery, and that that is why he requested her to show her breasts to him. When he brought the subject up in with Denson in the nearly three-hour “interview,” however, she laughed it off and even asked Bishop (paraphrasing), “Why would we have been talking about my boobs if I didn’t have any at age 21?” (See page 37 of the transcript.)

This also potentially speaks to Bishop's mental acuity during the "interview."

9 hours ago, esodije said:

3. I was intrigued by the fact that the BYUPD officers described in detail to Bishop what might happen to him in a criminal proceeding, but they didn’t once mention the possibility/probability that charges against him would be time-barred. I don’t know if they’ve been trained never to bring up the statute of limitations with an alleged perp, or if it really didn’t occur to them to mention it, but that stood out to me.

The statute of limitations is a legal issue.  It seems that BYUPD was focused primarily on gathering facts.  

9 hours ago, esodije said:

4. If Bishop really did confess the “show me your boobs” and “butt massage” incidents to his bishop shortly after they happened, I can’t fathom that bishop not discussing with him whether or not he really should continue as MTC president if he couldn’t resist the urge to diddle (and betray the trust of) young sister missionaries. If I were in that bishop’s shoes, I’d have suggested strongly that Bishop also confess to his superiors in the church Missionary Department and thus put the ball in their court. (And, if he refused to do that, I’d have called church HQ myself.)

Yes.  But "if" is the operative word here.

9 hours ago, esodije said:

5. Lots of male church members end up in frustrating, sexless marriages. However, acting out with young sister missionaries, just for the “titillation” (Bishop’s word choice), betokens a pretty deep character flaw. I still wonder how reliable Bishop’s memory is, just as I wonder if Denson’s recollections haven’t been augmented (my word choice) due to mental issues. But it’s mind-bending to contemplate.the black-hearted man who would manipulate and abuse a young woman in his charge.

I think the existence of a second victim is the best evidence of serious misconduct by Bishop.  But I think we have not seen any competent evidence of rape or attempted rape.

Thanks,

-Smac

[esodije]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which suggests that we're left with gauging the merits of Denson's claims based almost solely on her personal credibility.  That's the only evidence in view.

And we all know how poor her credibility is.

This also potentially speaks to Bishop's mental acuity during the "interview."

I agree. My point is that many people have assumed Bishop is guilty simply because he confessed to something with respect to Denson, without taking into account what he confessed to and the likelihood (a) that it really happened, and (b) that Denson really was the person to whom it happened.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The statute of limitations is a legal issue.  It seems that BYUPD was focused primarily on gathering facts.

I’m not talking about the BYUPD giving a legal opinion; however, they scared Bishop unnecessarily by making it seem that criminal charges were almost certain to result from the investigation. I would have told him, at least, that the prosecutor would have to decide both whether there was sufficient credible/reliable evidence to convict and whether the applicable statute of limitations operated to bar the prosecution in any case.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But "if" is the operative word here.

Exactly. Imagine you’re the MTC president’s ecclesiastical authority and he comes to you confessing grossly inappropriate behavior with multiple sister missionaries.  Again, many people have taken it at face value that a church authority knew what Bishop had allegedly done and gave him “absolution,” but with no real “penance” or “restitution,” and apparently without making any effort to protect other sister missionaries by initiating a process for removing him from the MTC post. (And they have used this “fact” as proof positive of the church’s “depravity” in covering up for male abusers.) My point is that it strains credulity to believe that, even in the “dark age” of 1984, a church authority would simply have let Bishop slide on the supposed confessions he made, especially since he still had two-plus years left in the calling.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the existence of a second victim is the best evidence of serious misconduct by Bishop.  But I think we have not seen any competent evidence of rape or attempted rape.

I agree, especially if the second victim were to testify as to Bishop’s having massaged her buttocks, the precise thing he admits to having done. I think it’s probable that Bishop did at least a few inappropriate things to/with sister missionaries in the MTC; however, neither Bishop nor Denson would make a very good witness.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, esodije said:

I agree. My point is that many people have assumed Bishop is guilty simply because he confessed to something with respect to Denson, without taking into account what he confessed to and the likelihood (a) that it really happened, and (b) that Denson really was the person to whom it happened.

It's probably safe to say that "something" inappropriate happened.  However, I doubt it was rape or attempted rape.

28 minutes ago, esodije said:

I’m not talking about the BYUPD giving a legal opinion; however, they scared Bishop unnecessarily by making it seem that criminal charges were almost certain to result from the investigation. I would have told him, at least, that the prosecutor would have to decide both whether there was sufficient credible/reliable evidence to convict and whether the applicable statute of limitations operated to bar the prosecution in any case.

It seems like law enforcement may want to rely on such vagueness/ambiguity in order to prompt the interviewee to take the matter seriously, to be forthcoming, etc.

28 minutes ago, esodije said:

Exactly. Imagine you’re the MTC president’s ecclesiastical authority and he comes to you confessing grossly inappropriate behavior with multiple sister missionaries.  Again, many people have taken it at face value that a church authority knew what Bishop had allegedly done and gave him “absolution,” but with no real “penance” or “restitution,” and apparently without making any effort to protect other sister missionaries by initiating a process for removing him from the MTC post. (And they have used this “fact” as proof positive of the church’s “depravity” in covering up for male abusers.) My point is that it strains credulity to believe that, even in the “dark age” of 1984, a church authority would simply have let Bishop slide on the supposed confessions he made, especially since he still had two-plus years left in the calling.

Yep.  Plenty of unknowns in what happened in 1984.

28 minutes ago, esodije said:

I agree, especially if the second victim were to testify as to Bishop’s having massaged her buttocks, the precise thing he admits to having done. I think it’s probable that Bishop did at least a few inappropriate things to/with sister missionaries in the MTC; however, neither Bishop nor Denson would make a very good witness.

I'm not sure the second victim would have been allowed to testify about such things.  I've had very limited experience with dealing with "prior bad acts" evidence.  Rule 404(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that "{e}vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."  However, Rule 404(b)(2) provides that such evidence "may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident."

In other words, it seems like the second victim's testimony would be submitted as "propensity evidence" against Bishop.  That is, Bishop's purported misconduct toward her is evidence that he had the "propensity" to engage in misconduct against Denson.  I don't think that would be allowed under the rules.

However, I'm quite open to correction on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, esodije said:

My point is that it strains credulity to believe that, even in the “dark age” of 1984, a church authority would simply have let Bishop slide on the supposed confessions he made, especially since he still had two-plus years left in the calling.

Even from a purely callous position of solely worrying about harm to the Church, it makes no sense to leave him if he confessed in a position where he could cause major issues for the Church.  One or two victims could be pushed under the rug in all probability at the time if they were so inclined.  But if there were a few more, it becomes not a he said, she said story, but a report about a serial molestor....much harder to control.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Denson did not disclose anything to the Church until, at the earliest, 1987. 

And she had the opportunity handed to her on a silver platter as far as the Church's effort (she may not have been ready, but the Church shouldn't be blamed for that).

When she claimed she had been assaulted in the parking lot on her mission (she claims she did this because she didn't want them to find out she was having an anxiety attack), she was sent back to Provo and sent to a counselor who she more or less brags now that she refused to tell him anything.  Same thing happened when she had an interview with Elder Monson prior to being sent back out.

So she and others can't or st least shouldn't claim no one from the Church was listening to her in all cases.  The first response was a strong supportive response.  If her later bishop knew about this episode, knew she hadn't given any details or made any claims about the MTC at that time, it makes it more understandable why he ignored the claim even though he was wrong to do so.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

And she had the opportunity handed to her on a silver platter as far as the Church's effort (she may not have been ready, but the Church shouldn't be blamed for that).  When she claimed she had been assaulted in the parking lot on her mission (she claims she did this because she didn't want them to find out she was having an anxiety attack), she was sent back to Provo and sent to a counselor who she more or less brags now that she refused to tell him anything.  Same thing happened when she had an interview with Elder Monson prior to being sent back out.

As I recall, her rape hoax involved a claim that she was raped by a black man.  Am I correct in recalling that she included that detail?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 9, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I recall, her rape hoax involved a claim that she was raped by a black man.  Am I correct in recalling that she included that detail?

Thanks,

-Smac

She had several claims of rape or attempted rape over the years.  That was one of them, different than the one that occurred on her mission, and he unfortunately went to jail for it for a time, iirc.  I don't remember the timing, but I am thinking at least late 90', likely later.  She claimed one of her neighbours drugged her orange juice and raped her in another case.  She threatened one of her bosses to give her money or else she would ruin him.  She did several injury scams of restaurants as well, even swallowing razor blade pieces when pregnant at a party for her kids and their friends.  Got some dental work done iirc after complaining she broke her tooth on something in a sandwich (chicken bone maybe).  There was an identity theft charge pending at the same time as the investigation, she had used an old boyfriend's credit card and SSN to sign up for utilities iirc, she claimed he had told her to do it.

It has been some time since I read the police reports, so my details may not be fully accurate.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

She had several claims of rape or attempted rape over the years.  That was one of them, different than the one that occurred on her mission, and he unfortunately went to jail for it for a time, iirc.  I don't remember the timing, but I am thinking at least late 90', likely later.  She claimed one of her neighbours drugged her orange juice and raped her in another case.  She threatened one of her bosses to give her money or else she would ruin him.  She did several injury scams of restaurants as well, even swallowing razor blade pieces when pregnant at a party for her kids and their friends.  Got some dental work done iirc after complaining she broke her tooth on something in a sandwich (chicken bone maybe).  There was an identity theft charge pending at the same time as the investigation, she had used an old boyfriend's credit card and SSN to sign up for utilities iirc, she claimed he had told her to do it.

It has been some time since I read the police reports, so my details may not be fully accurate.

IMO, because McKenna was sexually abused while young and probably abused in other ways and maybe didn't get the care she needed to come out mentally healthy, it manifested in the ways you've listed, through lies and criminal behavior. I believe girls like her that have been sexually abused or those that have had a baby out of wedlock or have experience, become a target to sickos out there. Bishop mentioned in the interview with the police, that it attracted him to her.

I don't believe he raped her, and the reason I say it, is because of her repeatedly lying about getting raped. Sort of like crying wolf. But maybe like the fairy tale..it happened, so who knows, we'll never know.

Too bad Bishop's family now have to live with this story of their father and grandfather. 

If you haven't listened to the recent recordings you may want to, because when discussing this on MDDB, it's easier if people are enlightened to what the subject is about. Otherwise you've not getting the full picture, IMO. Or when someone says something in the recordings you at least understand where they're coming from. 

 

 

 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, because McKenna was sexually abused while young and probably abused in other ways and maybe didn't get the care she needed to come out mentally healthy, it manifested in the ways you've listed, through lies and criminal behavior.

 Is there any possibility of comparable consideration and speculation being utilized relative to the inappropriate behavior of Mr. Bishop?  

If Ms. Denson's misconduct should be viewed through such a heavily contextualized, we-ought-not-rush-to-condemn-her-because-she's-probably-had-a-rough-life-and-that-sort-of-thing-can-be-reflected-via-personal-misconduct-and-acting-out-later-on-in-life kind of way, why not take a similar approach to Mr. Bishop?

Quote

I believe girls like her that have been sexually abused or those that have had a baby out of wedlock or have experience, become a target to sickos out there. Bishop mentioned in the interview with the police, that it attracted him to her.

I don't believe he raped her, and the reason I say it, is because of her repeatedly lying about getting raped. Sort of like crying wolf. But maybe like the fairy tale..it happened, so who knows, we'll never know.

Pretty much.  We can reach personal, privately-held conclusions on that question, but outwardly, the presumption of innocence carries the day.

Quote

Too bad Bishop's family now have to live with this story of their father and grandfather. 

 I imagine similar sentiments could be expressed about the family of McKenna Denson.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

On 3/26/2020 at 12:01 PM, smac97 said:

Yesterday the Church's attorneys filed a sealed motion:

Full docket text for document 101:
*SEALED DOCUMENT* SEALED MOTION filed by Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Jordan, David)

I suspect this motion is responsive to the document Ms. Denson filed on 3/20.

Thanks,

-Smac

Earlier today, the Court entered the following order relating to the above-referenced motion:

Quote

On March 25, 2020, Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The, filed a motion seeking an order from the court requiring Plaintiff, McKenna Denson, to provide additional details in a court-ordered affidavit. To date, Ms. Denson has failed to respond to the motion and on April 9, 2020, Defendant entered a request to submit for decision noting that the briefing period had passed with no response. (ECF No. 102.) Local Rule 7-1(d) provides that a “Failure to respond timely to a motion, … may result in the court's granting the motion without further notice.” DUCivR 7-1(d).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause why the above motion should not be granted. Plaintiff is directed to respond in writing within 14 days from the date of this order and inform the court of any opposition to the motion and intentions to proceed with this case.  Failure to do so will result in the court granting the motion.

I think what happened here was...

1. Quite some time ago the Church's attorneys sent Ms. Denson requests for information ("Discovery Requests") to which Ms. Denson is required to respond.  That requirement is ongoing, meaning that any information or documentation she receives, even subsequent to the Discovery Requests, must be sent to the Church.

2. Ms. Denson's attorneys withdrew quite a while ago, so Ms. Denson is on her own.  

3. IIRC, Ms. Denson made some public statements about materials she had in her possession.  The Church's attorneys sent her a reminder to turn these materials over.  She didn't, so the Church's attorneys filed a motion seeking a court order compelling her to provide an explanatory affidavit about these materials.

4. Ms. Denson filed an affidavit in late March, but it was apparently insufficient, so the Church filed "a motion seeking an order from the court requiring Plaintiff, McKenna Denson, to provide additional details in a court-ordered affidavit."  Ms. Denson did not respond to this motion, so the Court issued an "order to show case" ("OSC") which is essentially an extension of time (14 more days) for Ms. Denson to respond to the motion.

5. That the Court issued an OSC, rather than the order requested by the Church, is suggestive of the Court sort of bending over backwards to give Ms. Denson time to get her act together.  If she had been represented by an attorney, and if the attorney had failed to respond to the motion, I don't think the Court would have been so lenient as to give the attorney an extra two weeks.

6. I think we're watching the slow-motion demise of Ms. Denson's lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

On 4/9/2020 at 11:58 AM, Calm said:

Even from a purely callous position of solely worrying about harm to the Church, it makes no sense to leave him if he confessed in a position where he could cause major issues for the Church.  One or two victims could be pushed under the rug in all probability at the time if they were so inclined.  But if there were a few more, it becomes not a he said, she said story, but a report about a serial molestor....much harder to control.

To what degree would Bishop’s bishop have been bound by clergy/penitent privilege in the early 1980s?  Had he informed Bishop’s “employer” (which just happened to be the church they were both members of) about Bishop’s confession, would he be exposing himself and/or the Church to civil liability if Bishop were then relieved of his position?

And would Bishop’s bishop even be in a position to apply ecclesiastical sanctions against Bishop by—say—denying him a temple recommend?  I remember, around 2001, my mission president showing me his own temple recommend; which was signed by himself as recommend holder as well as on the “bishop” and “stake president” lines.  If Bishop, as MTC President; had the same prerogative to sign his own temple recommends; then his bishop may have felt himself both ecclesiastically unable to take disciplinary action, and legally prohibited from sounding an alarm with the Missionary Department.

Edited April 11, 2020 by mgy401

[Calm]

My understanding is higher up church leaders would be covered under confidentiality, but I am assuming that from cases I have heard about.  Perhaps a lawyer could clarify if this is accurate...clergy can share confidential info with their superiors (I assume because their pastoral authority comes from them).

[Avatar4321]

With the fact that false confessions are surprisingly common, the fact that his “confession” differs from her account so drastically, and issues with his mental abilities it doesn’t seem like we can take his statements as reliable as to what happened.

and of course she has reliability issues too.

the fact is none of the evidence for either of them is very good, I highly doubt we will find new evidence to make it clearer who, if either, is telling the truth.

God will provide a just judgment for all involved. It’s just unlikely we will find the truth in a court of law

[smac97]

On 4/10/2020 at 9:38 AM, smac97 said:

Earlier today, the Court entered the following order relating to the above-referenced motion:

I think what happened here was...

1. Quite some time ago the Church's attorneys sent Ms. Denson requests for information ("Discovery Requests") to which Ms. Denson is required to respond.  That requirement is ongoing, meaning that any information or documentation she receives, even subsequent to the Discovery Requests, must be sent to the Church.

2. Ms. Denson's attorneys withdrew quite a while ago, so Ms. Denson is on her own.  

3. IIRC, Ms. Denson made some public statements about materials she had in her possession.  The Church's attorneys sent her a reminder to turn these materials over.  She didn't, so the Church's attorneys filed a motion seeking a court order compelling her to provide an explanatory affidavit about these materials.

4. Ms. Denson filed an affidavit in late March, but it was apparently insufficient, so the Church filed "a motion seeking an order from the court requiring Plaintiff, McKenna Denson, to provide additional details in a court-ordered affidavit."  Ms. Denson did not respond to this motion, so the Court issued an "order to show case" ("OSC") which is essentially an extension of time (14 more days) for Ms. Denson to respond to the motion.

5. That the Court issued an OSC, rather than the order requested by the Church, is suggestive of the Court sort of bending over backwards to give Ms. Denson time to get her act together.  If she had been represented by an attorney, and if the attorney had failed to respond to the motion, I don't think the Court would have been so lenient as to give the attorney an extra two weeks.

6. I think we're watching the slow-motion demise of Ms. Denson's lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

We're now more than 14 days from the date of the April 10 order, and Ms. Denson still hasn't filed anything.  I wonder if the Court is being super-duper-extra lenient because of COVID.

Thanks,

-Smac

[esodije]

Boy, the dismissal process is taking so long in this lawsuit that one starts to wonder whether the various U.S. Courts of Appeal routinely reverse U.S district judges on the question of dismissal (when such orders are appealed). I’m also reminded of Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against the National Review and Mark Steyn, which has gone on for the better part of seven years now (in the D.C. District Court) without any significant discovery being done or compelled.  D.C. apparently has a so-called “SLAPP-back” statute, and the Mann suit is seemingly precisely the kind of abuse of process the statute was meant to short-circuit. Don’t ask federal judges to enforce it, however. What’s the saying? “Justice delayed is justice denied.” D^mn straight!

[provoman]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:43 PM, esodije said:

Boy, the dismissal process is taking so long in this lawsuit that one starts to wonder whether the various U.S. Courts of Appeal routinely reverse U.S district judges on the question of dismissal (when such orders are appealed). I’m also reminded of Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against the National Review and Mark Steyn, which has gone on for the better part of seven years now (in the D.C. District Court) without any significant discovery being done or compelled.  D.C. apparently has a so-called “SLAPP-back” statute, and the Mann suit is seemingly precisely the kind of abuse of process the statute was meant to short-circuit. Don’t ask federal judges to enforce it, however. What’s the saying? “Justice delayed is justice denied.” D^mn straight!

Does the Church attorney need to remind the Judge that the deadline has passed and the motion should be granted? Looking at PACER it appears several sealed documents have been filed AND seperateky it looks as though settlement negotiations are just building up to the actual discusion about terms and conditions of settlement

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, provoman said:

Does the Church attorney need to remind the Judge that the deadline has passed and the motion should be granted? Looking at PACER it appears several sealed documents have been filed AND seperateky it looks as though settlement negotiations are just building up to the actual discusion about terms and conditions of settlement

It looks like the Church's attorneys filed a "Sealed Motion for Preservation of Electronic Evidence" on May 15, which included several exhibits, one of which was a video that the Church submitted to the Court via flash drive.

Regarding a proposed reminder to the judge, I think it's unnecessary.  As the old saying goes:  "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."  There are times when letting the other side be derelict in their attention to the lawsuit, or indifferent to court-imposed deadlines and orders, is a good idea.  Ms. Denson has largely undermined and destroyed her own lawsuit through her own actions (and inaction).  Perhaps the Church's attorneys are simply stepping back and letting her continue to do that.

I haven't seen any indication of settlement terms.  Could you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2020 by smac97

[provoman]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It looks like the Church's attorneys filed a "Sealed Motion for Preservation of Electronic Evidence" on May 15, which included several exhibits, one of which was a video that the Church submitted to the Court via flash drive.

Regarding a proposed reminder to the judge, I think it's unnecessary.  As the old saying goes:  "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."  There are times when letting the other side be derelict in their attention to the lawsuit, or indifferent to court-imposed deadlines and orders, is a good idea.  Ms. Denson has largely undermined and destroyed her own lawsuit through her own actions (and inaction).  Perhaps the Church's attorneys are simply stepping back and letting her continue to do that.

I haven't seen any indication of settlement terms.  Could you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the response.

 

I must have misunderstood what I saw on PACER, as I thought I had seen filings related to settlement process in general. As I recall the settlement "meeting" is set for June/July.

[smac97]

On 5/22/2020 at 9:19 AM, smac97 said:

It looks like the Church's attorneys filed a "Sealed Motion for Preservation of Electronic Evidence" on May 15, which included several exhibits, one of which was a video that the Church submitted to the Court via flash drive.

Regarding a proposed reminder to the judge, I think it's unnecessary.  As the old saying goes:  "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."  There are times when letting the other side be derelict in their attention to the lawsuit, or indifferent to court-imposed deadlines and orders, is a good idea.  Ms. Denson has largely undermined and destroyed her own lawsuit through her own actions (and inaction).  Perhaps the Church's attorneys are simply stepping back and letting her continue to do that.

I haven't seen any indication of settlement terms.  Could you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

A minor update:

The deadline for Ms. Densonto respond to the above Sealed Motion was May 28, which she missed.  However, she did file a late response on June 2, and also apparently asked that the Court not strike it for being untimely.  The Church's attorneys today filed a response to Ms. Denson's request that includes the following:

Quote

COP filed a Sealed Motion for Preservation of Electronic Evidence (the “Motion”) on May 14, 2020. (Docket 108). The deadline for Ms. Denson to respond to the Motion was May 28, 2020. Ms. Denson missed that deadline and COP filed a request to submit and a proposed order on May 29, 2020.

On June 2, 2020, Ms. Denson filed a response to the Motion and the instant Request. COP understands from the Request that Ms. Denson is asking that the Court accept her response to the Motion and not strike it for having been filed after the deadline. COP does not object to the Request nor does it seek to strike Ms. Denson’s response brief. COP will respond to Ms. Denson’s opposition in its reply memorandum in support of the Motion shortly.

The Church's May 14 Motion, and Ms. Denson's June 2 response to it, are both "sealed," meaning that only the attorneys in the case (and the judge) can view them.  However, I think what has happened is that the Church's attorneys have collected evidence indicating that Ms. Denson has made representations to third parties (in interviews, online, etc.) that she has information or materials she is obligated to turn over the Church's attorneys as part of the litigation process, but has not done so.  I think the May 14 Motion is intended to compel Ms. Denson to not destroy, and to instead turn over to the Church's attorneys, this information.

We'll see what happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Another update:

On June 29, the federal court issued a "Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motions" (available for download here).

A few thoughts/observations:

1. Since the withdrawal of Ms. Denson's attorneys, the litigation has gone very slowly.  This is almost entirely attributable to misconduct by Ms. Denson.  

2. The Memorandum Decision is restrained and civil and decorous, as it should be.  But it's also quite clear that the judge is increasingly frustrated by and unhappy with Ms. Denson's misconduct.

3. At present, the only pending claims are "for common law fraud and fraudulent concealment or nondisclosure."  Essentially, Ms. Denson's theory is that the Church new Mr. Bishop was a "sexual predator" (her words), that it nevertheless appointed him as president of the MTC (where he would have immediate access to, and substantial authority over, young women), that the Church had a "common law" duty to warn young women in the MTC that Bishop was a "sexual predator," that the Church failed to disclose this (and/or "concealed" this), and that as a result Ms. Denson was caught unawares, that she was assaulted by Bishop, and that the Church should therefore be legally liable for having failed to disclose (or else concealed) Bishop's status as a "sexual predator."

4. Because her attorneys have withdrawn, Ms. Denson is proceeding pro se (she is representing herself in the lawsuit).  Lawyers often try to warn prospective clients against the perils of attempting to navigate litigation without an attorney.  The absolute mess she has made of the suit validates that warning.

5. The biggest part of the mess is Ms. Denson's failure to cooperate during the "discovery" phase of the litigation, which is when the parties exchange information and evidence about the legal issues presented to the court.  The June 29 Memorandum Decision itemizes all the ways Ms. Denson has screwed up, deliberately or otherwise, this process.

6. For example, per the Memorandum Decision, the Church's attorneys requested that Ms. Denson turn over a recording she made of a visit to Ronald Leavitt, who was her singles ward bishop back in the 80s, and to whom she claims to have disclosed the allegations against Mr. Bishop in 1987 (Mr. Leavitt is on record as disagreeing with Ms. Denson about the nature of that disclosure).  The court held a hearing about Ms. Denson producing that recording and turning it over to the Church's attorneys, during which "Denson represented to the court that certain items pertaining to this case, including the recording, have gone missing."  

It's kind of hard to take Ms. Denson seriously now, given how many times she has been caught in flagrant falsehoods.  In any event, the court then "ordered Denson to file a sworn {and detailed} affidavit concerning the missing items within 30 days," which she did on March 20.   The Church's attorneys apparently found the affidavit too vague, as five days later they filed a "Sealed Motion for Additional Information requesting the court order Plaintiff to supplement her affidavit regarding the evidence she claims has gone missing."  Ms. Denson did not oppose this motion, so the court issued an order requiring her to explain her failure to respond.  Ms. Denson filed something with the court stating that "she gave a trusted friend the recorder, which held the 'original recording of my conversation with Joseph Bishop and Ron Leavitt in April of 2019 to hold for safe keeping,'" and also explained that she (Denson) does not "have a 'safe deposit box' but her friend had a lock box at her residence, where she kept the recorder."  Denson also submitted to the court "correspondence from two individuals, Kathryn Sisney, who had the lock box with the recorder and recording, and Michael Bratcher, a friend of 11 or 12 years."

The court, having reviewed the matters, found that Ms. Denson had not complied with the court's instructions.  The court noted that it previously ordered Denson to "provide a detailed affidavit concerning the missing items," including "'the date on which she had possession of these items, how they were stored, the date upon which they were removed from storage and the approximate date that they were no longer in her actual or constructive possession.'"  In its June 29 Memorandum Decision, the court notes that "Denson has failed to comply with this requirement," and therefore orders Ms. Denson to submit another "supplemental affidavit" that "specifically lists each and every single item that is missing, a detailed description of each item, the dates Plaintiff had possession of each item, the date it went missing and precisely where each item has been stored."  The court further orders that "the supplemental affidavit is to be signed by Plaintiff," which suggests she had failed to sign the previous supplemental affidavit. The court also advises Denson that "a letter from a friend or others that is not in the form of a sworn affidavit will not suffice."  As I understand it, making misrepresentations to the court in a sworn statement can be grounds for a perjury charge, which is not the case with "a leeter from a friend .. that is not in the form of a sworn affidavit."  

7. Further on in the Memorandum Decision, the court, using very restrained and civil terminology, nevertheless quite clearly questions the motives and honesty of Ms. Denson:

Quote

The court is very concerned by the shifting representations made by Plaintiff. At the hearing held on February 20, 2020, Denson represented that the recording “was in a safe deposit box, but I took it out because I was handing it over to the Utah Bar.” Transcript of February 20, 2020 hearing. Denson provided that she could look through her records to determine when it was removed. Nonetheless, in her affidavit Plaintiff did not identify a bank or safe deposit box where the recording and other evidence was stored. Plaintiff now represents, in a filing before the court, that she does not “nor have ever had a safe deposit box.”  Instead, the recorder and recording was stored at a friend’s house in a lock box. This new representation is now accompanied by completely unsupported assertions made regarding the theft of the items possibly by individuals in this case, which border on absurd and irrational.

Wow.  It looks like Ms. Denson has been caught lying to a federal judge.  She has both claimed to have a "safe deposit box" and denied having a "safe deposit box."

She has also made "sompletely unsupported assertions" that "individuals in this case" (secret agents working for the Church, perhaps?) stole her stuff.  The court finds these claims to "border on absurd and irrational."  That's pretty serious stuff coming from a federal judge.

8. The Memorandum Decision also addresses motions made by the Church's attorneys for a third-party forensic technology specialist "to collect all data from Denson’s electronic devices and cloud-based accounts" because Ms. Denson has "1) Plaintiff has abused the discovery process; 2) improperly withheld and concealed evidence; and 3) made misrepresentations."  In particular, the Church's attorneys point out to "Plaintiff’s denial under oath of not having any Reddit account, and then later admitting that she not only had one, but also used it regularly to write about this case {the "Reddit account entitled nopotofgold"}; Plaintiff’s testimony that she is writing a book about her allegations, followed by a response to a document request that the manuscript consists of only a one-page outline; and, the ever shifting representations concerning the now missing evidence as noted above."

The court cites Denson as responding to these issues by saying that "Denson asserts the draft of her book entitled 'The Rape Room' was included with the flash drives that went missing and in any event, it is unimportant because the parties are heading into settlement negotiations."

Oi.  This is not a good attitude to present to a judge, as evidenced by the following rejoinder by the court:

Quote

Based upon the circumstances in this case, which includes the loss of evidence, the changing stories of Plaintiff concerning this evidence and how it was stored, the conflicting nature of reports Plaintiff has offered concerning an individual outside her home, and the alleged attacks upon her, the court finds the circumstances here warrant access to her electronic devices and cloud based accounts to create a mirrored image. This will preserve any evidence and perhaps discover evidence that has been lost. Denson’s offer of her password to certain social media accounts is insufficient to address the concerns cited above. Plus, even with access, there is nothing to prevent an attempt at destruction of evidence. The court presumes parties appearing before it will act in good faith, yet Plaintiff’s actions here have left the court with significant reservations.

"The conflicting nature of reports Plaintiff has offered concerning and individual outside her home, and the alleged attacks upon her" is a polite way of expressing skepticism, of the court telling Ms. Denson "You are losing your credibility because you keep telling whoppers."

"The court presumes parties appearing before it will act in good faith, yet Plaintiff’s actions here have left the court with significant reservations" is a polite way of the court telling Ms. Denson "You do not appear to be acting in good faith in this lawsuit."

9. The court ends up granting pretty much all of the motions filed by the Church's attorneys. 

Wow.  What a mess Ms. Denson has created for herself.  And not through neglect or inexperience, either.  She's been spinning a web of lies and deceit, which she could get away with when presenting such things to a pliant and supportive and credulous audience (opponents of the Church, who were cheering her on for a very long time).  However, now that she actually has to present evidence and factual and legal arguments and reasoning, the gig is up.  Her fawning toadies (Ryan McKnight, Consiglieri, Mike Norton, etc.) have all abandoned and/or turned against her.  Her attorneys have withdrawn (hard to blame them, really).

I think Mr. Bishop did something very wrong to Ms. Denson, though I don't think it was rape or attempted rape.  I think Ms. Denson was injured and, in the normal course of things, would have been entitled to file suit and seek compensation (against Bishop personally, and likely against the Church as well).  However, we have now spent years discussing all the details that have come out about Ms. Denson and her vast background of lies, frauds, criminality, deception, and so on.  She has virtually no evidence to back up her story.  She had only her credibility, which she has almost totally destroyed.

Just in the Memorandum Decision we see some pretty strong hints that the Court is thinking she

• A) has lied about having a safe deposit box;
• B) has presented the court with "absurd and irrational" and "unsupported assertions" about "individuals in this case" being responsible about her stuff going "missing";
• C) has lied about not having a Reddit account;
• D) has lied about writing a book;
• E) has presented conflicting explanations for missing evidence; and
• F) has presented conflicting reports about "an individual outside her home, and the alleged attacks upon her."

In a sense, I feel sorry for her.  She may have been a victim of a terrible wrong, but we'll never know.  We'll never know because we can't trust her to tell the truth. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2020 by smac97

[esodije]

If Denson has any friends left, they should really advise her to pack it in. She can’t prove her case, especially by clear and convincing evidence, and she’s not even doing the church any harm at this point beyond the ongoing legal fees it’s having to pay.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, esodije said:

If Denson has any friends left, they should really advise her to pack it in. She can’t prove her case, especially by clear and convincing evidence, and she’s not even doing the church any harm at this point beyond the ongoing legal fees it’s having to pay.

@esodije Is there something significant about Ms. Denson's case that elevates her burden of proof from the normal standard required in civil cases of a preponderance of the evidence (for the uninitiated, think, "50%, plus the tiniest bit more") to "clear and convincing evidence" (for the uninitiated, "clear and convincing" is more than the usual preponderance in civil cases, but less than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"; "I didn't do it, Johnny did it," along with at least some evidence to that effect, may create reasonable doubt; but "Martians did it" probably wouldn't [of course, that might depend on the jury ])?

For the record, I don't think Ms. Denson can prove her case by any standard.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@esodije Is there something significant about Ms. Denson's case that elevates her burden of proof from the normal standard required in civil cases of a preponderance of the evidence (for the uninitiated, think, "50%, plus the tiniest bit more") to "clear and convincing evidence" (for the uninitiated, "clear and convincing" is more than the usual preponderance in civil cases, but less than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"; "I didn't do it, Johnny did it," along with at least some evidence to that effect, may create reasonable doubt; but "Martians did it" probably wouldn't [of course, that might depend on the jury ])?

For the record, I don't think Ms. Denson can prove her case by any standard.

Her surving claims are based on a fraud theory.  All allegations of fraud must be proved by the heightened "clear and convincing" standard of evidence.

I think everyone recognizes her case toast.  It's just a matter of the litigation procedures playing out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Her surving claims are based on a fraud theory.  All allegations of fraud must be proved by the heightened "clear and convincing" standard of evidence.

I think everyone recognizes her case toast.  It's just a matter of the litigation procedures playing out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Danke schern, meiner lieber bruder!

[smac97]

I just noticed that almost exactly one year ago, on July 19, 2019, I posted some predictions about how the Denson lawsuit would play out:

Quote

I think we're witnessing the slow-motion demise of Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  Here are some predictions that I am making today, July 19, 2019:

1. Ms. Denson will not retain new attorneys.

2. The hearing on August 19, 2019 may result in further procedural steps (such as giving Ms. Denson a specific deadline to more fully respond to outstanding discovery requests).

3. Ms. Denson will not comply with the Court's instructions, probably by missing deadlines and not responding to discovery requests.

4. The litigation will be dismissed, either sua sponte or on motion, because of Ms. Denson's failure to meaningfully participate in the litigation and comply with the procedural and substantive requirements inherent in pursuing a federal lawsuit.

5. Ms. Denson will use the dismissal, and Mr. Vernon's withdrawal of his representation of her, as a basis for further efforts to garner attention for herself.  She may even make allegations of some sort of combination or conspiracy against her. 

6. In a way, this may be the best way out for her.  By letting her case die on procedural grounds, she can continue in maintaining claims against Joseph Bishop and the Church.  These claims will have never actually been tested and adjudicated in a court of law, but that's not her fault, you see.  It's Craig Vernon's.  And she didn't have the money to hire anyone else, and no attorney would step forward and help her.

7. Thus, rather than having her claims fail in court, a dismissal allows her to keep some semblance of them going.  For those still predisposed to believe her (largely due, I think, to a shared animus toward the Church), she will have become the victim of a flawed legal system.

Sheer speculation, but we'll see in a few weeks/months.

Items 1-4 seem to have been borne out so far.  Foreseeing that is nothing to brag about, though.  Litigation is tough.  Complex.  Intimidating.  I know lawyers who are scared stiff about going into a courtroom.  I've been litigating for 15 years, and I find it quite challenging.  That Ms. Denson would fail to "meaningfully participate in the litigation" was eminently predictable.

What I did not foresee, though, was how visceral the ex-mo crowd would be in turning against her.  Consider this prediction I had made in September 2018:

Quote

I can't help but think of Cindy Sheehan, the political activist who enjoyed a stint in the media and public spotlight for her theatrics aimed against specific politicians (the Bush II Administration). Bush's political opponents expressed all sorts of solidarity with and support for Ms. Sheehan, but only while she was in the spotlight, and only while she was a useful tool against Bush. But once the spotlight shifted away from her, her notoriety plummeted and she now has no appreciable voice or influence on any of the issues which are seemingly so important to her.

I think McKenna Denson is being used by McKnight/Consig/Norton in the same way Sheehan was used.  And once the news cycle moves on, I think these guys will just move on to the next useful person and leave Ms. Denson where she is.  Sad.

I had thought that Ms. Denson would be cast aside as a part of the progression of

• A) triumphal exploitation (by McKnight/Consig/Norton, etc. of Denson, against the Church), to
• B) their realization that Denson's narrative has had it's 15 minutes of utility as a weapon against the Church, to
• C) their neglecting and ignoring her, and finally
• D) their tossing her aside and moving on to the next narrative to weaponize against the Church.

 It looks like I got it wrong.  I did not anticipate Mike Norton being shocked - shocked! - to discovery that Denson's credbility was extremely poor, that she had a history of fraud and deceit for monetary gain, etc.  I had thought that people like Norton and her other supporters were aware of these issues and just didn't care.  As it turns out, I substantially underestimated their ignorance.  I'm still now sure whether that collective ignorance was deliberate or inadvertent. 

I think Ms. Denson's credibility, given her past history (which was known at the early stages of the lawsuit) was trashed from the get-go.  The only thing that changed was that Mike Norton turned many/most of her anti-mormon friends/allies against her by screaming about information  that had long been a matter of public record, but which her friends/allies had studiously ignored (again, not sure if that was inadvertent or deliberate).

I did not anticipate the anti crowd turning against Ms. Denson.  Items 5-7 above were predictions predicated on Ms. Denson continuing to spin yarns that would be credulously and uncritically and reflexively accepted by her supporters.  That, I think, is not going to happen now.

Thanks,

-Smac